• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Lois In Contempt

Mike

Well-known member
The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to hold former IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify about the agency’s targeting of conservative groups.

The House voted 231-187 for a resolution holding Lerner in contempt.

Lerner’s case will now be sent to the Justice Department, which then must decide whether to essentially prosecute Lerner in the case.

House GOP leaders have said Lerner’s testimony is important to fully investigate the scandal, in which IRS agents singled out Tea Party nonprofit applications for extra scrutiny.

“Thorough investigations by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee as well as the Ways and Means Committee have revealed findings that indicate that Ms. Lerner played a central role in the illegal targeting of conservative groups by the IRS,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said in a memo last month.

Last May, Lerner refused to answer questions at a hearing about IRS agents singling out Tea Party applications. She again refused to answer questions in March, citing her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

The House Oversight Committee voted to hold Lerner in contempt last month. All Republicans voted in favor and all Democrats voted against.

Lerner directed the IRS division that processes applications for tax-exempt status. She retired from the IRS last fall, ending a 34-year career in the federal government, including work at the Justice Department and Federal Election Commission.
 

Tam

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Hmmm, I wonder what the Justice Dept, will decide. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Jim Jordan was on saying the resolution says SHALL take the case to the Grand Jury. The only problem is there is no time frame to when Holder has to do it so you can expect it to happen about the same time h*ll freezes over and with all the global warming talk in DC I'm willing to guess it will not happen in the near future even if it has BIPARTISAN support.
 

cutterone

Well-known member
Pretty simple if you ask me, Throw her raggedy assp in jail as she has refused to testify therefore admitting guilt as refusing to refute the charges and then go after her 2nd in command down thru the ranks doing the same with the offer to name names or admit guilt. The rats will jump ship. They do not need Holders permission.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Just wait. Mr. "Constitution" will come along and have her fate decided with the usual rants about what the guys at the bar think. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
hypocritexposer said:
Hmmm, I wonder what the Justice Dept, will decide. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Jim Jordan was on saying the resolution says SHALL take the case to the Grand Jury. The only problem is there is no time frame to when Holder has to do it so you can expect it to happen about the same time h*ll freezes over and with all the global warming talk in DC I'm willing to guess it will not happen in the near future even if it has BIPARTISAN support.

When the Congress brought contempt charges against the Bush administration officials- it was over 2 years and after the election and GW had left office before they were able to get them to testify...
Just like with all criminal proceedings- due process can sometimes be drug out for years!
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
hypocritexposer said:
Hmmm, I wonder what the Justice Dept, will decide. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Jim Jordan was on saying the resolution says SHALL take the case to the Grand Jury. The only problem is there is no time frame to when Holder has to do it so you can expect it to happen about the same time h*ll freezes over and with all the global warming talk in DC I'm willing to guess it will not happen in the near future even if it has BIPARTISAN support.

When the Congress brought contempt charges against the Bush administration officials- it was over 2 years and after the election and GW had left office before they were able to get them to testify...
Just like with all criminal proceedings- due process can sometimes be drug out for years!

But the severity of the charges must be taken into consideration.
"The House voted Thursday to hold two of President Bush's confidants in contempt for failing to cooperate with an inquiry into whether a purge of federal prosecutors was politically motivated," AP reports.

Well DUH! Everyone knows it was "Politically Motivated". The Pres. has the authority to hire and fire U.S. Attorneys at will. :roll:
In September 2008, the Inspector General for the Department of Justice concluded that some of the dismissals were motivated by the refusal of some of the U.S. Attorneys to prosecute voter fraud cases during the 2006 election cycle.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Jim Jordan was on saying the resolution says SHALL take the case to the Grand Jury. The only problem is there is no time frame to when Holder has to do it so you can expect it to happen about the same time h*ll freezes over and with all the global warming talk in DC I'm willing to guess it will not happen in the near future even if it has BIPARTISAN support.

When the Congress brought contempt charges against the Bush administration officials- it was over 2 years and after the election and GW had left office before they were able to get them to testify...
Just like with all criminal proceedings- due process can sometimes be drug out for years!

But the severity of the charges must be taken into consideration.
"The House voted Thursday to hold two of President Bush's confidants in contempt for failing to cooperate with an inquiry into whether a purge of federal prosecutors was politically motivated," AP reports.

Well DUH! Everyone knows it was "Politically Motivated". The Pres. has the authority to hire and fire U.S. Attorneys at will. :roll:

Yep-- and many people in the country thought the tax exempt status claimed by many of these new political groups and PAC's should be examined much more closely...
All politics...
Comedy is that the only group denied exemption was a left wing leaning group- but we will spend $Millions holding hearings and more hearings to stir partisan busllsh*t on something that needed to be done in the first place...
 

Mike

Well-known member
The real comedy is you being too stupid to realize that many "Tea Party" Orgs have neither been rejected nor accepted after years of waiting for a determination.

No determination has the same tax implications as a rejection. :roll:

Several have been accepted only because the subject has had the sun shine on it. :lol: :lol:

And even when they were accepted:
"We now know that the IRS targeted not only right-leaning applicants, but also right-leaning groups that were already operating as 501(c)(4)s,” Camp said in a statement. He added:

At Washington, DC’s direction, dozens of groups operating as 501(c)(4)s were flagged for IRS surveillance, including monitoring of the groups’ activities, websites and any other publicly available information. Of these groups, 83% were right-leaning. And of the groups the IRS selected for audit, 100% were right-leaning.
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/7/house-republicans-find-10-of-tea-party-donors-audi/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
 

Latest posts

Top